We have been very fortunate so far, though I imagine that part of our relative health is our youth. I'm sure plenty of injuries are flukes, but I'd wager that many are not. Many of those figures are imperfect but overall I think they do an okay-ish job of accounting for the losses due to injury.

It's also likely to change when they play 5 more games than other teams over the next 2 months, although they have a decent travel schedule remaining.

I think he's an ass with a huge ego. I think some of the stuff he was writing about was interesting but he's not someone who's open to new ideas and other ways of thinking (which I find is a common feature of these analytics people and which I also find as hilarious since they fancy themselves as (data) scientists). Hopefully getting canned by the Oilers helped give him some perspective.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

For Jays fans, Andrew Stoeten got a weekly column there too.Yeah, Dellow is a smart guy, but his abrasiveness rubs me the wrong way too.Best of the stat heads might be our old pal, Jeffler. On top of game-to-game recaps, good prose, etc.

Sports radio is taste, but Elliot Price is very good. A lot of people aren't big fans of his style but he knows sports as well as anyone. He did a lot of Expos pbp, has done everything in radio. I'm surprised that he's actually moving to Toronto but with the market size, that's where the work is. Is 590 the Jays carrier ? Is there part time play by play work ?

clawfirst wrote:Yes 590...is sports net Rogers and owns the team and radio/tv....

And that is how they can pretend to lose money and be cheap assholes

TSN radio cut him loose when Bell indiscriminately turfed a bunch of people a year ago. Last week they canned another lot because they were angry about a CRTC ruling. Not a whole lot of 'nice' out there anymore, is there Claw ? Other than you n me that is.

They know there isnt real competition when there are only two options and one carrier. So just cut from the middle. Guys at the top are game changers (Mackenzie,McCown) and will basically work as long as they like. Everyone else is a moving part

clawfirst wrote:They know there isnt real competition when there are only two options and one carrier. So just cut from the middle. Guys at the top are game changers (Mackenzie,McCown) and will basically work as long as they like. Everyone else is a moving part

I just read an article about the guy moving to Toronto. He said it was an easy decision as he gets to talk baseball/basketball now whereas while there is interest here, there's no interest in talking about other sports on air. People want to talk CH or the ratings plummet. He has no love for the Habs nor the Leafs, which probably makes for better commentary.

Taken from reddit, here's the season broken down into Babs' 5 game blocks:

We're three points back of where Babs would like us to be. There are 2 games left in the current block and we're at 4 points in this block. The last block (ending with the win over the Bruins was the first in the last 5 where we hadn't met the 6 point target. Pretty interesting.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

Hopefully he and Lou can come to a Joisey style compromise on money and term. Count me (still) as one who sees no point jettisoning a 29.3962267 goal scorer and solid vet because "average prime age".

A comparison I still like is his goals/Game vs. Phil Kessel. Since 2013-2014, JVR has scored 28.something g/G. Phil has scored 29. JVR isn't the same kind of playmaker, but he's a damn good goalscorer and has done it with a lot less icetime. In around 3:00 less per game this season, JVR has 15 ES goals to Phil's 11.

For the fancystats whores, JVR's Corsi Rel the past two years has been 7.9 and 3.0, with Babs giving him 64% and 58% of his starts in the offensive zone, respectively. Phil's is 2.3 and -4.4 in 64% and 66% O-zone starts. Both guys are being given offensive minutes and producing goals at about the same rate, though I think one might argue that Phil has better guys to play on the PP with. Even given the uncertainty of Corsi Rel numbers, etc. (different teams, etc.) JVR stacks up very well against a guy many thought we were wrong to get rid of. In managed minutes with positive possession players like Marner, JVR's defensive game isn't really something to worry about.

Anyway, perhaps JVR the chip that gets us that coveted top-2 D, but I'm not sure there's a deal out there. Looking at the two destinations most speculated about, it's possible ANA will give up Lindholm or Fowler but I wouldn't. I'd move lesser guys to make room for them and pick up the pieces. From what I've read they could protect most of their top forwards and keep their big 3 D together at the expense of exposing Manson, who's good but not in the same tier. In WPG, Trouba is looking much better, but JVR is more of what they already have in spades given Wheeler and the emergence of Ehlers, Laine, etc. If no deal is available, we should be looking to re-up JVR.

Based on what capfriendly says, we have $4M in cap space right now and have the ability to exceed the cap by ~$13M by use of the LTIR room. SO, we have the capability of absorbing an additional $17M right now, if we needed to. My understanding is that we're going to have a bonus overage penalty next season and that would have been the case regardless of using LTIR for Robidas Island.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

Mirtle says he wouldn't use the cap. Thinks that it doesn't make sense to push overage into next season when your rookies will be even better.

I can easily think of situations in which I'd be willing to use that space. For instance, another trade like the one that landed us Carrick would be potentially useful (especially if the incoming player doesn't need to be protected in the expansion draft).

Adding Duchene or Landeskog might not even tap into the LTIR component depending on what's headed back the other way. (I mean we'd still be exceeding the cap because of bonuses, but that was happening anyways). Landeskog makes $5.5M and Duchene makes $6M. If it's Bozak or JvR going back the other way (plus prospects and/or picks) then the difference in salary wouldn't push us over the space we currently have. I'd be interested in them, but it would have to depend on the cost.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

Mirtle gets more credibility if he mentions that Laich, Mihalek and Greening are currently covering $8.3 million in cap space that will be gone next year. Their focus should be on not replacing those problem contracts with more problem contracts and things will be just fine.

Tim Gleeson's $1.33333 million is also off the books in a year.

A 4th line center won't cost any more than the current 4th line center and the back up goalie is currently making $800 000 so a replacement will be a wash, and have no increase on the cap.

Polak makes $2.250 so upgrading on him with a $7 million defenceman on costs $4.75 million.

His article is not overly accurate reflection of where the cap is next year.

You know just as well as I do that "good", "bad", "fun", and "dull" are simplistic descriptions of what the analyst interprets the data to mean. Here, "good" means positive shot generation and shot suppression v.s. average. Rielly is trending towards being above average in terms of shot suppression and above average in terms of shot generation, hence "good". All of this while producing near the top of the table among defenders.

I know it's easy to chortle and go full, "oh, so our young defender who's a threat for 30 points every season isn't hot garbage?" but there's been some serious concern with Mo's defensive game lately. I think it's a good illustration of why the argument that Mo's been around for a while and hasn't shown he can play defense yet. I myself have been harping on Mo a good deal this season after hoping that he would follow Jake's progression (where Jake wasn't good at suppressing shots early on in his career). Lately, Mo and Zaitsev have certainly looked overmatched but I don't know that it'll keep up as Rielly's ankle continues to heal up.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

There was even one of those recently between Kadri and Babcock after the centre told some reporters he’d like to become the sort of player who could win the Selke Trophy as the NHL’s top defensive forward one day.

Babcock sought him out in the dressing room.

“I said to him, ‘Do you really want to win that trophy? And he said, ‘Absolutely one day I’d like to win that trophy.’ Then I said ‘Then we’ve got lots of work to do.’ But if he wants to win it then I’m going to do everything I can to help.”

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - Ronald Coase"[...]all models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box

from a paywalled Dellow article on The Athletic talking about why Matthews/Kadri struggle with face-offs (thanks to some dude on reddit who posted the entire thing in the comments):

When Auston Matthews, a left-handed centre, takes an even strength faceoff on the left side of the offensive zone this year, the Leafs have outscored the opposition 6-2 (before he leaves the ice or the next whistle, whichever comes first).When Matthews takes a 5-on-5 faceoff on the right side of the offensive zone, the Leafs have outscored the opposition 4-3 (before he leaves the ice or the next whistle, whichever comes first).Stats like this are usually pointless trivia. Faceoffs are responsible for a torrent of useless blather over the course of a hockey season. But this case is different. The stat above flows from a broader truth about the NHL: Left-handed players are much better at winning strong side faceoffs (a lefty on the left side or a righty on the right side) and much worse at winning weak side faceoffs (a righty on the left side or a lefty on the right side) than right-handed players.Generally speaking, centres prefer to win the faceoff back and towards the boards. That prevents a loose puck floating around the middle of the ice where bad things can happen. It’s easier to do this when you’re on your backhand (on the strong side) because you can reach your stick out and pull directly backwards. If you’re on your forehand, you have to try and sweep the puck while turning your body to achieve the same thing.Historically, Maple Leafs head coach Mike Babcock hasn’t worried too much about trying to limit the extent to which his players take faceoffs on their weak side. But he has handled Matthews a little differently this year.In his first 16 games, Matthews took 71 per cent of his 122 5-on-5 non-centre ice faceoffs on his strong side. That’s an extreme mix, one that would have had him in the top 20 per cent of the league last year. Since then, he’s taken 54 per cent of his faceoffs on his strong side, which is much more consistent with Babcock’s past decision making.Before going further into the specifics of the Leafs, some background on faceoffs and how they work is helpful. Right-handed and left-handed centres aren’t just mirror images of one another. There are unique advantages and disadvantages with each side.The discussion in this piece will be confined to 5-on-5 faceoffs that did not occur at centre ice. This leaves us with eight faceoff dots and four different types of matchups: a player on his strong side versus an opponent on his weak side, strong vs. strong, weak vs. weak and weak vs. strong.Left-handed centres have a completely different mix of faceoff matchups than right-handed ones.￼Left-handed centres take about twice as many faceoffs where they are on their weak side versus an opponent on his strong side or vice versa as right-handed centres. Right-handed centres take about twice as many faceoffs on their strong side against an opponent on his strong side (or weak side vs. weak side) as left-handed centres.Since 2010-11, lefties have seen a left-handed opponent on the draw about 63 per cent of the time. For righties, that number rises to 69 per cent. The nice thing about that is that they aren’t exposed to a lot of instances where they’re on the wrong end of a strong/weak faceoff. The down side for them is that they don’t get corresponding strong/weak faceoffs either.The net effect of this is that lefties have a platoon split depending on whether the faceoff is on their strong or weak side. They tend to be markedly better on their strong side. Platoon split is a baseball term referring to the difference in stats batters have against pitchers depending on their handedness. Righties don’t really have one. In other words, the real advantage of being on your strong side comes from having an opponent on his weak side. That happens a lot more for lefties than for righties because of the NHL’s handedness split. It shows up in the rates at which they win faceoffs on their strong and weak sides.Toronto’s had six guys take at least 50 5-on-5 faceoffs this year: Tyler Bozak, Nazem Kadri, Matthews, Ben Smith, Frederik Gauthier and William Nylander. Three righties and three lefties.The three who are really struggling on their weak side are lefties: Kadri, Matthews and Gauthier. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that. Of the 184 players in the league who have taken at least 100 5-on-5 draws – with at least 50 5-on-5 draws on their weak side – this year, 27 are below 40 per cent on their weak side. Ninety per cent of those are lefties.Nylander’s an outlier: He hasn’t taken a lot of faceoffs overall, with only 10 of those being on his weak side. Gauthier, who’s a questionable prospect at this point, may ultimately find that there isn’t a lot of room in the NHL for a left handed faceoff specialist because you’re at a real disadvantage on half of the ice.It’s worth focusing on Kadri and Matthews a little bit. Kadri’s platoon split this year is nothing new for him: He’s a career 50 per cent on his strong side and 40 per cent on his weak side.The interesting thing about the platoon splits for Kadri and Matthews is that it’s like they’re two different players for shifts that start with a faceoff, depending on the side of the ice on which the puck is dropped. The right side is kryptonite. Goals aren’t particularly helpful here because the samples are tiny, so we’ll use shot attempts and focus on faceoffs in the end zone.￼As you can see, Kadri’s shifts go better when they start with him taking a faceoff on the strong side of the ice than they do when he takes a faceoff on the weak side. His Corsi percentage on shifts starting with a strong side faceoff in the defensive zone is 43 per cent; on the weak side, that falls to 38 per cent. In the offensive zone, those numbers are 74 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively.Matthews has a Corsi percentage of 38 per cent on shifts starting with a strong side faceoff in the defensive zone and a 26 per cent on shifts starting with a weak side faceoff. In the offensive zone, those numbers are 69 per cent and 57 per cent, respectively. It’s not surprising that the Leafs have done better in terms of goals when his shift starts on the strong side in the offensive zone instead of the weak side – those results are bought and paid for with a significantly better share of the shots, which flows from a greater likelihood of winning the faceoff.The time involved here is not insignificant. The Leafs have played 94.4 minutes worth of shifts so far this year that started with a Kadri or Matthews weak side faceoff in the defensive zone. They’ve played 107.47 minutes worth of shifts that started with a Kadri or Matthews weak side faceoff in the offensive zone.Over the course of the year, this will be about 4.5 games worth of time. Some back of the envelope math suggests that the Leafs could improve their expected goal difference by a couple goals over the course of the season if Kadri and Matthews didn’t take 5-on-5 end zone faceoffs on their weak side.Which brings us to, obviously, Ben Smith.“Adding Smith today gives us a right-handed faceoff guy who can penalty kill too,” Babcock said when he was claimed on waivers in October. “That was a concern for us. (Zach) Hyman and Leo are taking all the (PK) draws and they don’t play centre. We wanted to shore that up.”At the time of the claim, the Leafs had Bozak and Nylander as right-handed faceoff guys, with Nylander struggling to win faceoffs. Leaving the PK aside, you can see how Smith fit a very specific niche for the Leafs at 5-on-5. He’s carved out a career on being right handed and winning faceoffs.The Blackhawks started using him as a right-handed specialist in 2013-14, with 88 per cent of his 5-on-5 faceoffs being on the right side of the ice. This continued the following year. Late in that season, he was traded to San Jose, a team that fetishizes right-handed faceoff men. His time in San Jose came to a close when Toronto acquired him in the James Reimer deal last year. After briefly leaving for Colorado, the Leafs brought him back on waivers.Entering this year, he’d taken 1001 non-centre faceoffs at 5-on-5. Almost 80 per cent of them were on the right side of the ice and he’d done well, winning 54 per cent. When it’s Oct. 24 and your non-Bozak forwards are winning 40 per cent of the 5-on-5 faceoffs on the right side of the ice, without reasonable expectation for improvement, well, you can see the attraction.Regrettably for Smith, they keep playing the game after the puck has been dropped and the faceoff won or lost. He’s served as a Band-Aid on the right side for the Leafs but this a long-term issue. Kadri turns 27 this year. He is what he is. Matthews will probably improve but realistically, he’s going to have some limitations on the right side.Sidney Crosby’s gotten a lot of mileage out of going away one summer and learning how to take faceoffs. As great as that is, in the last seven years, he’s 48 per cent on the right side at 5-on-5. That’s about the best case scenario for Matthews. It’s possible that he doesn’t get better at all. Evgeni Malkin is 41 per cent on the right side at 5-on-5 since 2010-11. Jamie Benn is at 43 per cent. There’s a limit to what one can reasonably expect from a lefty on the right side.In the long term, the Leafs would benefit from finding right-handed players skilled enough to play with Matthews or Kadri who can win faceoffs on the right side.